Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 2079 2011 SLD 2079 2011 YLR 323
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 316 of 2009, decided on 17th September, 2010
ZIA-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J
Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah for Petitioner. Murad Ali Khan for
Respondents

MUHAMMAD RABI

VS

ISMAIL KHAN and others

Law:

Section:

(a) North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)--- ----Ss. 6 & 13---Suit for pre-emption--Making of Talbs---Both Trial Court and Appellate Court had concurrently decreed suit filed by the plaintiff---Validity---Informer in the present case was son of the plaintiff who was stated to be the sole witness of Talb-e-Muwathibat---Plaintiff in his statement in the court while appearing as his own witness had stated, date and time of information as given by his son about the sale, but deposition of his son in that regard was totally silent---If son of the plaintiff/informer was the sole witness of the factum of Talb-e-Muwathibat, he ought to have supported the stance of the plaintiff/his father---Plaintiff, not only was required to give the requisite details in the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad and in his plaint but he was also required to substantiate the said details through his evidence---In the present case the plaintiff had disclosed details in his notice of Talb­e-Ishhad and the plaint, but had failed to prove said facts through any corroborated evidence---In the absence of said details in the evidence, mere mention of the same in notice, Talb-e-Ishhad and plaint were highly insufficient, in circumstances---Since details were totally missing in the evidence, first formality of Talb-e-Muwathibat stood unfulfilled and the suit of the plaintiff could not be legally decreed---Such material aspect of the case had totally escaped the notice of both the courts below while recording concurrent findings and had totally travelled on different premises in that regard---In absence of non-observance of the first Talb/Talb-e-Muwathibat, the factum and performance of Talb-e-Ishhad was inconsequential---Right of pre-eruption was feeble and piratical right, for the proof whereof, evidence of predominant nature was required to be led by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff had failed to do that--Impugned s and decrees recorded by the forums below being perverse in nature and based on surmises and conjectures, were set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, in circumstances. 2007 SCMR 962; 2009 SCMR 488 and 2008 SCMR 934 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492